• Announcements

    • CHIMM

      Operation Burning Skies   09/17/2019

      All pilots scramble!  Strap yourself in for this months Community event - Operation Burning Skies! This Sunday, September 22, 11 am – 5 pm server time. In honor of XOOM and friends showcasing WWII Online at the Oregon International  Air Show – our forces too will battle for superiority in Operation Burning Skies. High Commands are on high alert to rally their forces to victory! Lift off, and see a whole new world of WWII Online… Fearless bomber pilots make the skies rain down fire – our daring fighter pilots are in pursuit of their prey- as western Europe erupts in war on the ground below! Rally your squads, rally your buddies - Combined arms are back!  …Under Burning Skies! SALUTE!
delems

AB capture mechanic.

121 posts in this topic

39 minutes ago, delems said:

*** rules are the rules, as bad as they might be

But it isn't good gameplay.

What you are basically saying, is that to take a town you first capture every CP in town - and hold them; then AB.

Is that what we want?  You must take whole town first, then AB?

 

Well That is how I understood the new rules, being in opposition to the former « capture AB first to kick the flag ».

But like I said, that rear linked depot could indeed be removed now that we have garrisons that remain active. Until then we should adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking FBs when the enemy already has a chunk of the town we are defending always seems bogus to me (or when the same is done to our attacks).  If the attacker has a FB to the target town, then caps the spawnable, I think I'd like the link to go both ways in the sense of where the "lines" are. Meaning that if you cap spawnable, the linked FB is safe. Taking out a FB should require owning the linked depot in the target town. Then even with FMSs, there is a reason to hold the spawnable---anyone who would be wasted defending the FB can be in town, instead (we don't have so many people that having a few people watching every linked FB is great gameplay). The current attacking with aircraft can still happen (maybe to both, though perhaps harder to damage inf), and maybe damage to the FB can impact supply rates to FMS and depots (not list, just how quickly it trickles in).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2019 at 1:20 PM, tater said:

Attacking FBs when the enemy already has a chunk of the town we are defending always seems bogus to me (or when the same is done to our attacks).  If the attacker has a FB to the target town, then caps the spawnable, I think I'd like the link to go both ways in the sense of where the "lines" are. Meaning that if you cap spawnable, the linked FB is safe. Taking out a FB should require owning the linked depot in the target town. Then even with FMSs, there is a reason to hold the spawnable---anyone who would be wasted defending the FB can be in town, instead (we don't have so many people that having a few people watching every linked FB is great gameplay). The current attacking with aircraft can still happen (maybe to both, though perhaps harder to damage inf), and maybe damage to the FB can impact supply rates to FMS and depots (not list, just how quickly it trickles in).

Indestructable FBs are a bad idea, IMO. I can never understand how folks have no problem with the idea that CPs that they capture should be guarded, but are against the idea that their forward base should be guarded as well.

In real life, attacking an enemy town would have vital targets that the attacker would need to deal with. Communications center. Munitions depot. Motor Pool. Fuel depot. Docks. Airfield.Now in our game, The AB serves as the Motor Pool and Munitions depot. (Armor can't be spawned and most supply is unavailable), and the airfield and Docks can be captured.

But what vital targets do the defenders have that they can attack to stop the attack? FMSs and FBs. There's very little option for interdiction from an FB, and none TO it. Allowing the FB to be a target allows defenders one major vital target. And it's not easy to kill. It is easily monitored. Trying to kill one while an AO is in progress is hard to do... but it should be an option.

 

S!S!S!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quincannon said:

Indestructable FBs are a bad idea, IMO. I can never understand how folks have no problem with the idea that CPs that they capture should be guarded, but are against the idea that their forward base should be guarded as well.

In real life, attacking an enemy town would have vital targets that the attacker would need to deal with. Communications center. Munitions depot. Motor Pool. Fuel depot. Docks. Airfield.Now in our game, The AB serves as the Motor Pool and Munitions depot. (Armor can't be spawned and most supply is unavailable), and the airfield and Docks can be captured.

But what vital targets do the defenders have that they can attack to stop the attack? FMSs and FBs. There's very little option for interdiction from an FB, and none TO it. Allowing the FB to be a target allows defenders one major vital target. And it's not easy to kill. It is easily monitored. Trying to kill one while an AO is in progress is hard to do... but it should be an option.

 

S!S!S!

i agree

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Indestructable FBs are a bad idea, IMO. I can never understand how folks have no problem with the idea that CPs that they capture should be guarded, but are against the idea that their forward base should be guarded as well.

We simply don't have enough people. So now we need 1+ per facility, as well as what, 2 for the FB? That's more people than might be playing at some hours. I'm against guarding all the time, it's awful, because it relies on CQB, the worst gameplay in ww2ol---and that's when it's interesting, most of the time it's staring at nothing (and a decent % of the time I get killed I am typing, or looking at the map out of extreme boredom).

 

Quote

In real life, attacking an enemy town would have vital targets that the attacker would need to deal with. Communications center. Munitions depot. Motor Pool. Fuel depot. Docks. Airfield.Now in our game, The AB serves as the Motor Pool and Munitions depot. (Armor can't be spawned and most supply is unavailable), and the airfield and Docks can be captured.

In RL, how many times did 3 people drive behind hundreds of troops and take out an attack?

I could see it being interdicted by aircraft, maybe even paras. Everything in the game is too porous. The FMS are supposed to represent force massing---where the front actually is (jump off point for attack, defensive positions if that was ever a thing ahead of time for defense).

I think all the MSPs (and ammo resupply) should have on sides rules (the ammo could avoid this, but only if it was not infinite, IMO, it needs finite ammo that makes sense for the available volume). If that was the case, and the attacker took the spawnable, the defender could take out the FB---but he'd have to bring all the guys to do it, as it would be impossible to set an FMS anywhere near the FB unless they first took out the spawnable (and even then, likely not any closer than a km, or whatever the enemy facility no-go zone was (the on-sides rules are the same for all spawns and all facilities). Ie: there would be a bulge in the line that went out from the FB to the spawnable disallowing FMS withint whatever that min offset was, so any attack on the FB would have to set on a flank of that bulge, so away from town, sure, but not like now where it might be set behind the FB, on-sides rules would prevent this. On the plus side for the defense in this case, they would not have to defend to their rear, either (though they might have attacking FMS from multiple sides depending on linked town directions.

So if you think on-sides is a good rule, there is no need for indestructible FBs. This would be my preferred solution. I hate the 360 nature of all attacks and all defenses, I suppose I hate that for FBs as well, and making them immune just means preventing yet another stupid, 360 defense. I'd rather see FB attacks have to be actual attacks (I hate every single "sneaky" set of gameplay in ww2ol, frankly). Catching someplace unguarded that is supposedly important, and any CO with ideal forces would guard is just bad game design.

 

Quote

But what vital targets do the defenders have that they can attack to stop the attack? FMSs and FBs. There's very little option for interdiction from an FB, and none TO it. Allowing the FB to be a target allows defenders one major vital target. And it's not easy to kill. It is easily monitored. Trying to kill one while an AO is in progress is hard to do... but it should be an option.

It basically only happens because of stupid FMS rules (both directions, to be sure, so I suppose fair is fair in that case), or that there are too few players, or that no one want to do the boring work (work) of guarding anywhere, much less someplace with little chance of any action.

As I said above, on-sides FMS would deal with many gameplay problems, IMO, automatically.

 

Edited by tater
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly heartening to see general agreement from our players regarding these issues - now all we need is CRS input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tater said:

We simply don't have enough people. So now we need 1+ per facility, as well as what, 2 for the FB? That's more people than might be playing at some hours. I'm against guarding all the time, it's awful, because it relies on CQB, the worst gameplay in ww2ol---and that's when it's interesting, most of the time it's staring at nothing (and a decent % of the time I get killed I am typing, or looking at the map out of extreme boredom

 

No one knows more about not having enough people than me. I play Allied TZ3. I understand the issue with guarding, but I will be darned if I can see how the FB is any less important than any other CP (as it were) in an attack. But it doesn't HAVE to be guarded all the time. I know... because every time I start an FB bust whether it's near an attack otr not, it starts out unguarder, and I get a lot of bombs on, and then one johnny on the spot who typed in .own and sees my 30 minutes of work pops in with am SMG and wipes the floor with me. They didn't GUARD the FB... They weren't BORED at the FB... they typed in a code to check the status. For me THAT sucks.... I don't find that realistic in the slightest. But as it is no one has to guard the FB all the time. Even planes can only damage the vehicle tents.
 

4 hours ago, tater said:

In RL, how many times did 3 people drive behind hundreds of troops and take out an attack?

Well, both sides had special missions to take out specific enemy installations. Call em Commando raids... Call em sabotage... call it what you will... but IRL. I will never forget the impact that one solitary US Marine had in helping the French underground and frustrating the heck out of the Germans all by himself. If the FB represents the forward fire base for a brigade, then it is possible for a small force to destroy that base if it's not guarded well. Since everything in our game is representative... we have to look at each player as essentially representing a squad of soldiers, flight of planes, squadron of ships anyway. And let's be honest... since they made the FBs as hard to destroy as a bridge, the number of them destroyed by defenders is very small. It happens... but it's uncommon. And it allows great FB players like Bloodybill to play the game their way, while players like me try to emulate them and die in droves. :D

 

 

4 hours ago, tater said:

I hate the 360 nature of all attacks and all defenses, I suppose I hate that for FBs as well, and making them immune just means preventing yet another stupid, 360 defense. I'd rather see FB attacks have to be actual attacks (I hate every single "sneaky" set of gameplay in ww2ol, frankly). Catching someplace unguarded that is supposedly important, and any CO with ideal forces would guard is just bad game design.

I don't like the 360 nature of MOST attacks either. I agree that, realistically speaking, most conflicts worked from one direction. Then again, General Anthony Clement "Nuts" McAuliffe was well acquainted with a 360 degree defense when he defended Bastogne. It happens.  I wish that there was a much more fluid CP design stretching out from towns... take the farmhouse.... then take the gas station at the edge of town... then an in town CP... and so on until the AB gets taken. It would allow for more of an advance. as it is we have 360 fighting AND the godforsaken warping and link spawn depots.

Actually I don't have an issue with FBs having to watch the perimeter. It's a camp. If it gets attacked, half the time it won't be by a force of tanks and trucks full of soldiers. Then it will be by covert operations. (A tried and true military tactic). And there were a LOT of good commanders who had their guards taken out and their installations destroyed by good covert units.

As far as sneaky play... Maybe you don't like it. But there HAS to be room for more than battlefield charges. The war encompassed a LOT more than fighting in the field. And this is a game. You may want fronts of massed soldiers. And maybe a few large squads will do that. The rest of us have to conduct guerilla warfare just to survive. Consider that every FMS has to be somewhat sneaky on an attack, or the enemy will kill it. ATGs and AA in the field have to be sneaky and use terrain to hide. Every unit has its sneaky aspect. The truth is that it just sucks being the one who got outsneaked. Everyone has a different play style. I suck at CQB AND fighting out in the field... so I play sneaky ... but so does Boudreau when he picks me off from 500 yards with that sniper cannon of his.

S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quincannon said:

No one knows more about not having enough people than me. I play Allied TZ3. I understand the issue with guarding, but I will be darned if I can see how the FB is any less important than any other CP (as it were) in an attack. But it doesn't HAVE to be guarded all the time. I know... because every time I start an FB bust whether it's near an attack otr not, it starts out unguarder, and I get a lot of bombs on, and then one johnny on the spot who typed in .own and sees my 30 minutes of work pops in with am SMG and wipes the floor with me. They didn't GUARD the FB... They weren't BORED at the FB... they typed in a code to check the status. For me THAT sucks.... I don't find that realistic in the slightest. But as it is no one has to guard the FB all the time. Even planes can only damage the vehicle tents.

Nope, it's not, if it was realistic in the slightest, literally every unit in the spawn list would be there, spawned in when you showed up to blow the joint. ;)

I dislike sneaky play almost 100% of the time currently. (not saying I don't do it, I help out when the chat asks for FB teams all the time, actually)

Capping, or taking a FB? I would far prefer multiple FBs, multiple CPs, all with smallish, variable (for fog of war) spawn lists. 1 squad to a couple platoons? I'd rather they expect me, and that I have to assault the facility, and take it. I'd prefer this pretty much 100% of the time in an occupied area (town or FB (it's a BASE of operations, after all)). For "garrison" towns, I'd rather those lists be much smaller, and I'm OK with sneaky attacks on those "rear area" or effectively unoccupied towns.

Quote

Well, both sides had special missions to take out specific enemy installations. Call em Commando raids... Call em sabotage... call it what you will... but IRL. I will never forget the impact that one solitary US Marine had in helping the French underground and frustrating the heck out of the Germans all by himself. If the FB represents the forward fire base for a brigade, then it is possible for a small force to destroy that base if it's not guarded well. Since everything in our game is representative... we have to look at each player as essentially representing a squad of soldiers, flight of planes, squadron of ships anyway. And let's be honest... since they made the FBs as hard to destroy as a bridge, the number of them destroyed by defenders is very small. It happens... but it's uncommon. And it allows great FB players like Bloodybill to play the game their way, while players like me try to emulate them and die in droves. :D

It represents the jumping off point of an attack. Basically the one place you can be certain all the troops are ready to go. The idea of a sneaky attack taking that out is patently absurd, frankly. I'd far rather have meaningful (AI) logisitics on the map that can be interdicted, bridges blown, etc. That's a good para mission, maybe.

 

Quote


I don't like the 360 nature of MOST attacks either. I agree that, realistically speaking, most conflicts worked from one direction. Then again, General Anthony Clement "Nuts" McAuliffe was well acquainted with a 360 degree defense when he defended Bastogne. It happens.  I wish that there was a much more fluid CP design stretching out from towns... take the farmhouse.... then take the gas station at the edge of town... then an in town CP... and so on until the AB gets taken. It would allow for more of an advance. as it is we have 360 fighting AND the godforsaken warping and link spawn depots.

It happens 100% of the time in ww2ol, and it happened in RL because large units encircled the city. Not 3-4 trucks with armies spawning out of their butts.

On-sides MSP rules would allow many towns to have EFMS on large arcs (many have 2+ enemy town links, after all), and people would be free to spawn in, and ride on a truck to some rear area if they wish (we did it in the old days). On-sides MSPs doesn't stop an armored column with troops riding along from encircling. They just don't get to use a TARDIS.

 

Quote

Actually I don't have an issue with FBs having to watch the perimeter. It's a camp. If it gets attacked, half the time it won't be by a force of tanks and trucks full of soldiers. Then it will be by covert operations. (A tried and true military tactic). And there were a LOT of good commanders who had their guards taken out and their installations destroyed by good covert units.

A Forward Base in the context of WW2OL is the jumping off point or an attack. The "FB" for D-Day was where the troops were stationed in Britain. The "FB for the Germans in the Bulge was where they massed the day before the attack started. Don't think a covert op is taking those out.

 

Quote

As far as sneaky play... Maybe you don't like it. But there HAS to be room for more than battlefield charges. The war encompassed a LOT more than fighting in the field. And this is a game. You may want fronts of massed soldiers. And maybe a few large squads will do that. The rest of us have to conduct guerilla warfare just to survive. Consider that every FMS has to be somewhat sneaky on an attack, or the enemy will kill it. ATGs and AA in the field have to be sneaky and use terrain to hide. Every unit has its sneaky aspect. The truth is that it just sucks being the one who got outsneaked. Everyone has a different play style. I suck at CQB AND fighting out in the field... so I play sneaky ... but so does Boudreau when he picks me off from 500 yards with that sniper cannon of his.

This game is dominated by sneaky play, sometimes followed by CQB zerg deathmatches.

I'm all for covert ops. They should be the cool exception, not the rule. The "garrison" paradigm I think is terrible. I'd much rather have almost no troops in garrison towns (literally at most a platoon in the whole town, with perhaps an attached ATG unit, and a couple ancient tanks). Then I'd let rear towns get capped. With on-sides MSPs, that would mean a long truck ride (filled with troops, because no MSPs), or more likely: a real day to day use for paras. Perhaps a mechanism whereby if paras take a depot, they can be resupplied---by aircraft. Ie: paras take a facility. Every JU 52 carried 15 paras in RL. C-47 held 28. I would say that the difference between those carried (real players) and the total load could be added to any depot captured. So say you drop 8 guys in a JU. You cap a CP, and then the remaining 7 join the spawn list in that CP. JU flies home. Subsequent JUs (empty of troops) fly over, and unload 15 each into the captured CPs. Yeah, the allies get a benefit here because the C-47 is a better aircraft.

See, cool, covert ops.

You could do the same with naval infantry, actually. Use the para models, and remove the chutes. The are not naval infantry, they are "commandos." They get similar rules.

Edited by tater
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about different rules for capping garrison vs brigade towns?

Garrison towns can get sneaky capped (zero change from current WW@OL). Brigade towns are changed such that they are impossible to attack in a sneaky way. AI is 360 until some time after EWS AND an AO comes on. AO timer must precede the EWS (meaning the tables have to be hot BEFORE any EWS) , or the clock resets. Something along those lines. If there's a Bde, you go in expecting an assault on a town. Garrisons... whatever (still think they need a far, far smaller spawn list than right now, I'd rather more maps going faster---we can always have maps start at a random tier each time for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tater said:

Nope, it's not, if it was realistic in the slightest, literally every unit in the spawn list would be there, spawned in when you showed up to blow the joint. ;)

I dislike sneaky play almost 100% of the time currently.

Capping, or taking a FB? I would far prefer multiple FBs, multiple CPs, all with smallish, variable (for fog of war) spawn lists. 1 squad to a couple platoons? I'd rather they expect me, and that I have to assault the facility, and take it. I'd prefer this pretty much 100% of the time in an occupied area (town or FB (it's a BASE of operations, after all)). For "garrison" towns, I'd rather those lists be much smaller, and I'm OK with sneaky attacks on those "rear area" or effectively unoccupied towns.

It represents the jumping off point of an attack. Basically the one place you can be certain all the troops are ready to go. The idea of a sneaky attack taking that out is patently absurd, frankly. I'd far rather have meaningful (AI) logisitics on the map that can be interdicted, bridges blown, etc. That's a good para mission, maybe.

 

It happens 100% of the time in ww2ol, and it happened because large units encircled the city. Not 3-4 trucks with armies spawning out of their butts.

On-sides MSP rules would allow may towns to have EFMS on large arcs (many have 2+ enemy town links, after all), and people would be free to spawn in, and ride on a truck to some rear area if they wish (we did it in the old days). On-sides MSPs doesn't stop an armored column with troops riding along from encircling. They just don't get to use a TARDIS.

 

A Forward Base in the context of WW@OL is the jumping off point or an attack. The "FB" for D-Day was where the troops were station in Britain. The "FB for the Germans in the Bulge was where they massed before the attack started. Don't think a covert op is taking those out.

 

This game is dominated by sneaky play, sometimes followed by CQB zerg deathmatches.

I'm all for covert ops. They should be the cool exception, not the rule. The "garrison" paradigm I think is terrible. I'd much rather have almost no troops in garrison towns (literally at most a platoon in the whole town, with perhaps an attached ATG unit, and a couple ancient tanks). Then I'd let rear towns get capped. With on-sides MSPs, that would mean a long truck ride, or more likely, and real day to day use for paras. Perhaps a mechanism whereby if paras take a depot, they can be resupplied---by aircraft. Ie: paras take a facility. Every JU 52 carried 15 paras in RL. C-47 held 28. I would say that the difference between those carried (real players) and the total load could be added to any depot captured. So say you drop 8 guys in a JU. You cap a CP, and then the remaining 7 join the spawn list in that CP. JU flies home. Subsequent JUs (empty of troops) fly over, and unload 15 each into the captured CPs. Yeah, the allies get a benefit here because the C-47 is a better aircraft.

See, cool, covert ops.

You could do the same with naval infantry, actually. Use the para models, and remove the chutes. The are not naval infantry, they are "commandos." They get similar rules.

First, I'm going to say that most of your suggestions seem to be optimized for large scale forces regularly playing on both sides. I think that we both know that's not likely to happen. If ideas that favored large scale play  were introduced, then the pop issues would be even worse. For the game to survive, pure numbers advantages MUST be mitigated. This game cannot devolve into another BF clone.

I really want to keep discussing this... with you... but we see the very concept of a game entirely differently. From what you are saying, you apparently see this as a game where, if you aren't a combat player whose skill set allows you to get into the thick of it on the front line, then you should GTFO. You just seem to want straight up combat, and the rest is inconsequential at best. Consequently, this makes play styles that differ, and the players who use them, inconsequential as well.

I am not saying this to insult you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have met folks in the game before who feel that way, and what you are saying echoes the things that they have said in the past.

Fortunately, one of the wonderful things about this game... the only game I would have left BF1942 and Forgotten Hope for, is that support play and other non direct combat play is available. You can find any number of games that offer JUST what you're arguing for; but precious few that offer what THIS game does. That's one of the things that makes this game unique and in my opinion SUPERIOR to all of the others. It's easy to make a game where you have small matches and the point is to get the most caps or kills. It's NOT easy to make a game where everybody gets to play. This is a game where the less twitch capable players can still have fun. It's a game where someone like me can field 63 sorties with zero caps or kills, and STILL contribute to his side.

 I can't agree with you on the way things should be. I actually LOVE most of this game as it was designed. I would see some changes, but none that would remove gameplay from anyone.

But it's also the kind of game where we can all respect each other. So you play your way, and I'll play mine. Just please don't try to take MY game away because you don't want to play that way.

S!S!S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well...US primetime? Boom taken with a gross axis SD that didn't stop them at all because they had the spawn and managed to all spawn in BEFORE allies responded.

SD is TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE IF YOU DO NOT DIE!

One town away from Antwerp and the BOOM skyline was full of EA...kudos to a team that overwhelms  a town but ASSUMING the town has defenders is NONSENSICAL AT BEST. All the games spawn delay system is doing is annoying one side and making the other side log off, which makes it even WORSE.

 

Currently CINEY attack is being easily killed off with inf as the SD makes it even if you CAP A SPAWN you cannot get back in before ONE ei can recap the cp..err DUH!

 

Seriously, and i mean this wholeheartedly DO CRS DEVS ACTUALLY PLAY IN HIGH SD conditions? The system is broken, the playerbase know it, but we don't seem to be even TRYING anything to fix it.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8Y09U5RqJXfe3kZo3p9a

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you want exactly, @Quincannon.

This game pretends to have a meta game---the "map"---but it might as well be a single medium sized town in 1:1 scale, and hyper detailed for all the benefit we get from the "map."

The game has meta units---Brigades and Garrisons (equally as large as brigades, for reasons that entirely escape me). These units only exist as units to be killed. Of sides were exactly even in a give AO, 1 BDE vs 1 BDE, then the side that dies more eventually is at a disadvantage as the SMGs reduce (those being the primary tools in the CPs). The reality is that side are NOT equal much of the time. As a result, the Brigades are meaningless. Yeah, a handful of defenders can die a lot, and burn through a spawn list, but a BDE spawn is is only a "brigade in being" if the actual players exist to spawn in at the same level as the attackers. Short of that, all that matters is the player pop. 20 players attacking from a FB with 1 BDE is far more effective than 5 -10 players in a town with multiple BDEs stacked on it (honestly, stack as many as you like, 20 guys from a Garrison town wipe the floor with 5 guys who are given an intermission spawn list.

If the BDEs don't matter on the field, during a battle, the entire "map" is a lie.

The game is 100% about relative player numbers in a given AO.

Pretending that an FB raid is "commando" is silly.

A theater wide game has room for both sorts of play, but it would have to actually model those sorts of things. It doesn't.

 

1 hour ago, Quincannon said:

This is a game where the less twitch capable players can still have fun.

100% of the play that matters is twitch. It's CQB in the CPs, where the time it take me to shoulder a rifle and aim at a close ei is too long compared to his fire from the hip SMG, and I lose in some fraction of a second. That's the very definition of "twitch." I let my 13 YO son play my account a few times. His first time on, ever, he pulled the trigger on a bolt rifle 4 times, and killed 4 ei. In town, running around. I know for a fact his reaction time is 10X faster than my 50 YO reaction time (neuro exhibit at the museum had a thing to test this).

I'm looking for a game that is in fact what you say you want in that quote ^^^ I want a game where it's not CQB twitch, I want a game where you have to think about how you make a move. There will be violence of action at some point, but there will at least be some thought first.

I see the "map" in a perfect game world as a way to create novel tactical encounters. Huge map, offering attacks from different directions, etc. Should be interesting and different. It's not. It's almost always the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tater said:

I don't know what you want exactly, @Quincannon.

This game pretends to have a meta game---the "map"---but it might as well be a single medium sized town in 1:1 scale, and hyper detailed for all the benefit we get from the "map."

The game has meta units---Brigades and Garrisons (equally as large as brigades, for reasons that entirely escape me). These units only exist as units to be killed. Of sides were exactly even in a give AO, 1 BDE vs 1 BDE, then the side that dies more eventually is at a disadvantage as the SMGs reduce (those being the primary tools in the CPs). The reality is that side are NOT equal much of the time. As a result, the Brigades are meaningless. Yeah, a handful of defenders can die a lot, and burn through a spawn list, but a BDE spawn is is only a "brigade in being" if the actual players exist to spawn in at the same level as the attackers. Short of that, all that matters is the player pop. 20 players attacking from a FB with 1 BDE is far more effective than 5 -10 players in a town with multiple BDEs stacked on it (honestly, stack as many as you like, 20 guys from a Garrison town wipe the floor with 5 guys who are given an intermission spawn list.

If the BDEs don't matter on the field, during a battle, the entire "map" is a lie.

The game is 100% about relative player numbers in a given AO.

Pretending that an FB raid is "commando" is silly.

A theater wide game has room for both sorts of play, but it would have to actually model those sorts of things. It doesn't.

 

100% of the play that matters is twitch. It's CQB in the CPs, where the time it take me to shoulder a rifle and aim at a close ei is too long compared to his fire from the hip SMG, and I lose in some fraction of a second. That's the very definition of "twitch." I let my 13 YO son play my account a few times. His first time on, ever, he pulled the trigger on a bolt rifle 4 times, and killed 4 ei. In town, running around. I know for a fact his reaction time is 10X faster than my 50 YO reaction time (neuro exhibit at the museum had a thing to test this).

I'm looking for a game that is in fact what you say you want in that quote ^^^ I want a game where it's not CQB twitch, I want a game where you have to think about how you make a move. There will be violence of action at some point, but there will at least be some thought first.

I see the "map" in a perfect game world as a way to create novel tactical encounters. Huge map, offering attacks from different directions, etc. Should be interesting and different. It's not. It's almost always the same.

While I agree that there is a lot pf repetition, that's what a war is. Troops move, they fight the enemy. The Generals try to out think one another, and move things around. Rinse and repeat. Honestly, this is one of the only games that actually tries to do that on all of those levels, and maintains player accountability (Unlike H&G).

The battles do change,as each one is fought by different people, with varying levels of strategic and tactical skill. And here, unlike BF or FH, the battle outcome has an import. Maybe YOU don't think so, but a lot of us do.

Which leads to my most important point: Your posts take into account what YOU think. Maybe what others who share your opinion think. But, with all due respect, you are wrong! The biggest myth that came out of your post is "100% of the play that matters is twitch." Sorry neighbor, but that is YOUR opinion. It is not shared by me or others like me. I suck at direct combat. I'm 53 and had carpal tunnel for the past 20 years. (Not sure if the surgery will help my skill yet or not). I'm not necessarily the guy you want inside guarding a CP. But in a night, I'm the guy running FMSs and then handing them off to better combat guys so I can drive another one. I'm the engnineer who actually spends time building defensive PPOs around the FMSs. I'm the mortarman shelling the CPs to keep the enemy jumping. I'm the NCO who runs out to the ATGs and AAA to place ammo boxes. I'm the engineer who repairs AI during an attack while under fire and builds defensive FMSs inside the ABs  at the bunker when I can. I'm the HC setting the AOs and DOs and trying to rally the folks. I blow bridges to stop enemy armor and rebuild them for ours.

In short, I'm every support player who spends hours and hours doing the support stuff that you stated doesn't matter. Sorry neighbor. That statement is an slap in the face to every player who busts their A$$ to make sure that the fighters get to the battlefield, and have the support they need while they are there. Sure a lot of it's sneaky play. I have crawled through more bushes than I can count for hours to set up a FRU back in the day, and an HC MSP in the current campaign.

I don't want to turn this into a bad feelings flame. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just stating the facts as a LOT of people who play this game see it. Kill/ cap stats are great. I give out a lot of awards to those who earn them. I also give out a lot of awards for those actions that support those killers and cappers. Yep, they are very important. But so are we.

Have a wonderful day, neighbor.
S!S!S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 10:02 AM, Catfive said:

Since 1.36 the dynamic of capture changed. The garrison supply is still available in depots when your ab is lost but additionally your FBs come up AND spawnables have supply from flag links also making them now super spawns with 2 lists of inf to draw from meaning you can (and we have done many times) completely lib a town and bounce the AO if the attack doesn't tie down the depots first. It is very reminiscent of 'dont cap the city' flag  from the days of fallback - don't cap the ab until you have all enemy link depots is a mantra, learn it, love it.

I am not a fan that it works this way since garrisons and would sooner see garrison supply is held in limbo not usable until AB regained but it is the mechanic we currently have so I'll use it every opportunity and encourage otehrs to but yes I'd rather see the garrison unusable if the AB is enemy held. Spawnables and FBs is enough of a boost to a def imo.

Couldn't have been articulated better and exactly same approach/view point from me, garrison supply should be gone after AB cap, only linking towns CPs with active FBs should be spawnable after AB falls and draw supply from them (I know delems doesn't like this magic (mechanic), but i feel it is one we understand and works better/cleaner).

Until that is the case.. it is double dipping for everyone and makes "[censored]-block" operations even more possible ([censored] block operations are those, when an underpop side (often severely) ends up holding against the hordes and denying what SEEMED like a CERTAIN TAKE and pissing the [censored] out of everyone involved in that attack and making their emotions run so high as to need a break (i.e.sometimes referred to as rage quit!) (before had to do this with FB busts of active AOs (can still do) but now can do alot more with booting AO more often as well), it was also possible for HC to do before by endless flag rotation into a defense and boring attackers to death (now thankfully in 1.36 that is a more or less gone, still too  many flag supply for my taste, but cant have it all :)

This ability to be able to [censored]-block in a way could be seen as a plus as those are the ones that turn the tide of pop.. regrettably by making the overpop side mass log and lose their overpop as oppose to making more reinforcement log in to other side. Then the underpop side gets a chance to regroup after boot of enemy AO and can create their own AO and grow their pop while making the previously overpop crew log for a little while till they calm their nervs or come back for revenge later/ next day with fresh will to fight.. 

my 2 cents S! 

potthead

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need some more INPUT from the playerbase about these CORE mechanics - the fact that there is only around five players actively contributing to this thread is telling.

Regarding pop balance...when one side is so OP that the ACTIVELY cap the bunkers early because they have enough players to have a fms waiting at the other teams now active fbs... well HOUSTON we have a problem.

Last night we had a quite a few new players running around Mettet - the ones that found the defensive fms and in the ab were mowed down repeatedly. ONE SIDE did not actively cap cps because they were attriting the link town so effectively. It was smart game play for ONE side - effective but in the long run where do you think those new players will go now?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dropbear said:

the fact that there is only around five players actively contributing to this thread is telling.

It may be telling that many players don't see a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** It may be telling that many players don't see a problem

Or maybe they don't understand the issue - is blatantly incorrect imo - has no real world abstraction, this game feature.

Isn't the game supposed to simulate reality?

How does JWBS infantry from backline towns to frontline make any sense?  Attacker can't do it......

 

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, delems said:

Or maybe they don't understand the issue - is blatantly incorrect imo

 

Not agreeing with your opinion doesn't mean others don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read better.

There is the issue, then there is my opinion.  Two different things.

Stop making everything personal and conflating the two.

Post facts or details regarding the issue, pro or con.

Stating 'It may be..."  or "your opinion..."  don't help - they aren't facts for or against the issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, delems said:

Read better.

There is the issue, then there is my opinion.  Two different things.

Stop making everything personal and conflating the two.

Post facts or details regarding the issue, pro or con.

Stating 'It may be..."  or "your opinion..."  don't help - they aren't facts for or against the issue.

 

You should take your own advice. You lead with a personal attack because I don't agree with your opinion. I can't state facts to prove a negative - particularly when it is, entirely, a matter of player opinion.

But relax, I'm going now, and I'm sure you need to attend to your catalog of complaint threads.

S!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.